{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-93884", "citation": "Res. 00027-2006 Tribunal Agrario", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Posesión forestal y titulación en área silvestre protegida", "title_en": "Forest possession and titling in protected wilderness area", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario confirma el rechazo de una solicitud de información posesoria para titular un predio ubicado dentro de la Reserva Forestal Río Macho, creada por Decreto Ejecutivo No. 1-A del 23 de enero de 1964. El tribunal elabora un extenso análisis sobre la naturaleza de la posesión forestal, entendida como un poder de hecho sobre terrenos de vocación forestal orientado exclusivamente a la conservación del recurso. Para adquirir un derecho de propiedad por usucapión sobre áreas silvestres protegidas, el solicitante debe demostrar una posesión decenal anterior a la fecha de creación del área protegida, orientada a su protección. La sentencia invoca el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, tal como fue reformado por la Ley Forestal 7575, y recuerda que la interpretación que exigía únicamente una posesión personal (sin admitir la transmitida) fue declarada inconstitucional. En el caso concreto, los testigos no pudieron probar una posesión previa a 1964, por lo que se declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación.", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court confirms the denial of a possessory information petition seeking to title a property located within the Río Macho Forest Reserve, created by Executive Decree No. 1-A of January 23, 1964. The court provides a thorough analysis of the nature of forest possession, defined as de facto control over land of forest aptitude aimed exclusively at resource conservation. To acquire ownership by adverse possession over protected wilderness areas, the applicant must demonstrate decade-long possession predating the creation of the protected area, conducted with a conservation purpose. The decision applies Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law as amended by Forestry Law 7575, and recalls that the interpretation requiring only personal possession (excluding transmitted possession) was declared unconstitutional. In this case, the witnesses could not prove possession prior to 1964, so the appeal is dismissed.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Agrario", "date": "2006", "year": "2006", "topic_ids": [ "forestry-law-7575", "property-and-titling" ], "primary_topic_id": "forestry-law-7575", "es_concept_hints": [ "posesión forestal", "información posesoria", "área silvestre protegida", "usucapión", "posesión decenal", "función ecológica de la propiedad", "patrimonio natural del estado", "transmisión de posesión" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 7", "law": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias" }, { "article": "Art. 1", "law": "Ley Forestal" }, { "article": "Art. 13", "law": "Ley Forestal" }, { "article": "Art. 45", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 856", "law": "Código Civil" } ], "keywords_es": [ "posesión forestal", "información posesoria", "área silvestre protegida", "usucapión agraria", "Reserva Forestal Río Macho", "patrimonio natural del estado", "posesión ecológica", "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "Ley Forestal", "función ecológica" ], "keywords_en": [ "forest possession", "possessory information", "protected wilderness area", "adverse possession agrarian", "Río Macho Forest Reserve", "state natural heritage", "ecological possession", "Possessory Information Law", "Forestry Law", "ecological function" ], "excerpt_es": "Artículo 7.-Cuando el inmueble al que se refiera la información esté comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegida, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, el titulante deberá demostrar ser titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre.", "excerpt_en": "Article 7.- When the property referred to in the information is situated within a protected wilderness area, regardless of its management category, the applicant must demonstrate that they hold the legal rights to decade-long possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created such wilderness area.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Agrarian Court denied the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the possessory information petition for failure to prove decade-long possession prior to the creation of the Río Macho Forest Reserve.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Agrario rechazó el recurso de apelación y confirmó la denegatoria de la información posesoria por no haberse demostrado la posesión decenal anterior a la creación de la Reserva Forestal Río Macho." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "It is not possible to acquire title over forest-covered lands without demonstrating that the forest resource has been protected.", "quote_es": "No es posible adquirir la titularidad sobre terrenos con cobertura boscosa si no se demuestra haber protegido el recurso forestal." }, { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "Forest possession concerns a specific asset: lands covered by forests or with forest aptitude. The owner or possessor of such assets has the obligation to conserve forest resources and may exploit them economically only under the restrictions or limitations imposed by law.", "quote_es": "La posesión forestal recae sobre un bien específico: los terrenos cubiertos de bosques o de aptitud forestal. El propietario o poseedor de tales bienes tiene la obligación de conservar los recursos forestales y no los puede aprovechar económicamente sino bajo las restricciones o limitaciones impuestas por la ley." }, { "context": "Considerando VI", "quote_en": "The law does not protect, but instead represses, possession through which forest resources of protected areas are destroyed.", "quote_es": "La ley no tutela, al contrario reprime, la posesión a través de la cual se destruyan los recursos forestales de áreas protegidas." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-93884", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-10044", "norm_num": "139", "norm_name": "Ley de Informaciones Posesorias", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "14/07/1941" }, { "doc_id": "norm-32840", "norm_num": "2825", "norm_name": "Ley de Tierras y Colonización", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "14/10/1961" }, { "doc_id": "norm-41661", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_name": "Ley Forestal", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "13/02/1996" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"IV.- Este Tribunal de forma reiterada ha considerado que \"... La Información Posesoria es un trámite de actividad judicial no contenciosa para la formalización de un título registrable sobre un derecho de propiedad que se ha llegado a adquirir por la usucapión, cumpliendo para ello con los requisitos legales correspondientes. Se exige demostrar la posesión a título de dueño, en forma quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida (artículos 1 Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 856 del Código Civil). El titulante, aparte de carecer de título inscrito o inscribible en el Registro Público, debe manifestar expresamente que la finca no ha sido inscrita en el Registro Público anteriormente. Por razones de interés público, y para evitar una doble inscripción registral sobre un mismo bien, o bien, para tutelar a terceros de mejor derecho que el titulante, la Ley exige notificar a ciertos sujetos. También estableció un trámite de oposición dentro de la Información Posesoria, en caso de que alguno de los interesados se sienta perjudicado por la titulación (artículo 8). La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ordena al Juez tener como partes y por tanto notificarles personalmente desde el inicio de las diligencias, a los colindantes, ello por cuanto la titulación podría abarcar parte de las tierras que les pertenecen... se ordena notificar a los condueños o condóminos. Igualmente, en resguardo de los intereses del Estado, se ordena tener como parte a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, para el resguardo de la propiedad sujeta al dominio público, y de la Propiedad Agraria estatal (artículo 5). Finalmente, la Ley manda a citar a todos los interesados, mediante la publicación de un Edicto en el Boletín Judicial, que puedan tener un interés legítimo en el proceso.(Ver numeral 5 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias).- La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, en su artículo 7, así como las Leyes Forestales han procurado proteger los recursos forestales de la acción humana, sometiéndolos a diversas formas de manejo forestal. Aunque se ha permitido la titulación de dichas áreas, que ya declaradas como áreas de conservación pasan a formar parte del Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, se exige el cumplimiento de otros requisitos más calificados. Eso nos conduce, directamente al concepto de posesión ecológica, y al criterio de la función ecológica de la propiedad forestal. En reiteradas sentencias, tanto de la Sala Primera de Casación, como del mismo Tribunal Superior Agrario, se han establecido los principios que deben regir para resolver éste tipo de situaciones agro-ambientales. Nuestro país ha sido pionero en la construcción de los institutos de la posesión agraria y la posesión ecológica. La misma jurisprudencia ha reconocido y desarrollado estos institutos, así como el ciclo de vida de la posesión agraria y, recientemente de la posesión ecológica (dentro del más amplio criterio de la función ecológica de la propiedad forestal). La misma Jurisprudencia ha querido distinguir la propiedad y posesión empresarial donde se ejercita una actividad dirigida al cultivo del bosque, de aquella donde simplemente se realiza una actividad extractiva o bien, meramente conservativa. En estos últimos casos se estaría en presencia de una propiedad o posesión forestal (sin empresa). Precisamente es en estos casos donde la Ley Forestal viene a establecer todo un régimen jurídico para la protección de los recursos forestales, sometiendo algunas veces al propietario en forma obligatoria al régimen forestal y en otros casos en forma voluntaria. De esa forma, en la posesión forestal el poder de hecho se ejerce sobre un bien de vocación forestal o en su mayor parte destinado a proteger los recursos forestales, sin miras a su explotación o bien, dedicándolo a la simple extracción de especies maderables, a través de planes de manejo para lograr la regeneración natural del bosque. En uno y otro caso no existiría el desarrollo de un ciclo biológico vegetal o animal, ni asumiría el hombre ningún riesgo. Es por eso que la ley no tutela, al contrario reprime, la posesión a través de la cual se destruyan los recursos forestales de áreas protegidas. Además niega la posibilidad de adquirir derechos de posesión sobre tierras de las reservas nacionales cuando se ha ejercido una acción dañina en contra de los recursos forestales. Hoy, parte de la doctrina agrarista afirma la existencia de un Derecho forestal, con particularidades de sistema orgánico y completo, donde ocupan un lugar importante los institutos de la propiedad y posesión forestal. En Costa Rica la propiedad forestal, y también la posesión forestal como derecho real derivado de aquella, o bien concebido en forma independiente, se comienza a perfilar desde el Código Fiscal de 1885, que establece todo un capítulo en cuanto a bosques cuyas regulaciones tienden a su conservación. Posteriormente la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 del 6 de enero de 1939 incorpora dichos principios. Luego la Ley de Tierras y Colonización en su artículo 7 amplía las reservas nacionales para la protección de tales recursos. VII. La legislación especial en cuanto a la tutela de la propiedad y posesión forestales tiene tres etapas en nuestro país. La primera etapa de la propiedad forestal se enmarca con la Ley No. 4465 del 35 de noviembre de 1969. La segunda se abre a través de una normativa mejor concebida a través de la Ley No. 7032 del 7 de abril de 1986, la cual fue posteriormente declarada inconstitucional. La última opera con la promulgación de la Ley Forestal No. 7174 del 28 de junio de 1990, reformada recientemente, por Ley No. 7575 del 13 de febrero de 1996 (publicada en el alcance 21 de La Gaceta No. 72 del martes 16 de abril de 1996). En ellas, se contienen diversos regímenes de propiedad forestal, y limita el uso y aprovechamiento de los recursos por los particulares. No es posible adquirir la titularidad sobre terrenos con cobertura boscosa si no se demuestra haber protegido el recurso forestal. Su fundamento constitucional se encuentra en el párrafo segundo del artículo 45 de la Constitución. A través de limitaciones de interés social se protege el instituto de la propiedad y la posesión forestal. Esta no es igual a la civil, ni a la agraria, se trata de una propiedad para conservar, y por tanto los actos posesorios que en ella se realicen deben tener esa finalidad.- VIII. La posesión forestal ha tenido su régimen jurídico en las Leyes Forestales mencionadas. Recae sobre un bien específico: los terrenos cubiertos de bosques o de aptitud forestal. El propietario o poseedor de tales bienes tiene la obligación de conservar los recursos forestales y no los puede aprovechar económicamente sino bajo las restricciones o limitaciones impuestas por la ley. Para la solución jurídica de conflictos que nazcan del ejercicio de la posesión forestal, se debe aplicar ese régimen jurídico especial y los principios del Derecho forestal. La Ley Forestal establece como función esencial y prioridad del Estado, velar por la protección, la conservación, el aprovechamiento, la industrialización, la administración y el fomento de los recursos forestales del país, de acuerdo con el principio de uso racional de los recursos naturales renovables.(Artículo 1). Todos los terrenos de aptitud forestal y los bosques del país, ya sea estatales o que estén reducidos a dominio particular, quedan sometidos a los fines de la ley. El régimen forestal es el conjunto de disposiciones, entre otras, de carácter jurídico, económico y técnico, establecidas por la ley, su reglamento y demás normas, que regulen la conservación, la renovación, el aprovechamiento y el desarrollo de los bosques y terrenos de aptitud forestal del país. Por ello, para adquirir la propiedad forestal por usucapión, se requiere el ejercicio de la posesión forestal. El artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones posesorias, reformado por la Ley Forestal, establecía, antes de su reforma: \"Artículo 7.- Cuando el inmueble a que se refiere la información esté comprendido dentro de una zona declarada parque nacional, reserva biológico, reserva forestal o zona protectora, el titulante tendrá que demostrar haber ejercido la posesión decenal con por lo menos diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la respectiva ley o decreto en que se creó la respectiva área silvestre. Las fincas que estén fuera de esas áreas y que tengan bosques, solo podrán ser tituladas si el promovente demuestra haberlas poseído por diez años o más y haber protegido dicho recurso natural, en el entendido de que el inmueble tendrá que estar debidamente deslindado con cercas o carriles.\" En otros términos, el poder de hecho en la posesión forestal recae sobre el recurso natural \"bosques\" o \"terrenos de aptitud forestal\", y los actos posesorios deben ir encaminados a su protección y conservación. Sólo si se demuestra eso podría adquirirse o inscribirse terrenos a favor de dichos poseedores. De lo contrario, quedarían formando parte del patrimonio natural del estado (artículo 13 de la nueva Ley Forestal), con carácter inembargable e inalienable, y su posesión no causará ningún derecho a favor de los particulares (artículo 14 de la nueva Ley Forestal).- IX. El Tribunal Agrario, había interpretado el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, antes de ser reformado por la nueva Ley Forestal, en el sentido de exigir una posesión personal, ejercida con diez años de antelación a la creación de la reserva forestal o área protegida (Véase en tal sentido los Votos No. 169 de las 9 horas 40 minutos del 22 de marzo de 1991 y No. 251 de las 14 horas del 17 de abril de 1991)...\". Sin embargo, esa interpretación del artículo 7 de la Ley Forestal, fue cuestionada de \"inconstitucional\", por la aquí titulante, y la Sala Constitucional, en Voto No. 4587-97 (publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 188 de fecha 1 de octubre de 1997) declaró, en lo que interesa, lo siguiente: \"Se declara parcialmente con lugar la acción y, en consecuencia, que es inconstitucional la interpretación del artículo 7 de la Ley de informaciones Posesorias No. 139 del 14 de julio de 1941, cuyo texto corresponde a la reforma producida por la Ley Forestal No. 7174 del 28 de junio de 1990, de acuerdo con la cual para titular terrenos comprendidos en parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, reservas forestales o zonas protectoras, se requiere posesión personal con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto que crea el área silvestre protegida, y que no favorece en estos casos la posesión transmitida por anteriores poseedores. Esta sentencia es declarativa y sus efectos retroactivos, sin perjuicio de derechos adquiridos de buena fe...\". De manera tal que los poseedores actuales pueden aprovechar la posesión trasmitida...X. La Ley Forestal No. 7575, también mantuvo las restricciones en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, para poder titular terrenos comprendidos en áreas protegidas. Al respecto dispone el actual numeral: \"Artículo 7.-Cuando el inmueble al que se refiera la información esté comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegida, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, el titulante deberá demostrar ser titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre.\"(La negrita es nuestra). Es decir, la intención del legislador es que esas áreas se hayan mantenido protegidas, conservadas durante todo este tiempo, incluso antes de la creación de las Reservas y áreas protegidas...\". (Resolución de las 14:50 horas del 20 de febrero de 1998 que responde al Voto No. 113). V.- En cuanto a lo alegado por el recurrente respecto a que el hecho que el bien estuviera dentro de la Reserva Forestal Río Macho, surgió en el transcurso del proceso, pues desde que se inicia el procedimiento ello es sabido pues uno de los requisitos iniciales es la certificación del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía donde se hace constar tal circunstancia (véase folio 2), presentada por el promovente al iniciar el proceso. Este documento indica, el bien objeto de titulación se encuentra dentro de dicha área silvestre protegida creada por Decreto Ejecutivo N° 1-A del 23 de enero de 1964. Partiendo de los expuesto es claro tal circunstancia era de conocimiento y por lo tanto era su obligación demostrar una posesión decenal con anterioridad a la fecha indicada en que se creó al Reserva Forestal Río Macho. VI.- En cuanto al alegato referido a la prueba para mejor resolver que señala no fue evacuada por el juzgador, se hace necesario indicarles al recurrente dicha prueba es facultativa del juez no de las partes. La parte titulante además, debía desde el momento en que ofreció prueba testimonial, corroborar los testigos conociesen el terreno durante el tiempo suficiente para poder probar los hechos por ella afirmados. Si por error o ignorancia, del peticionante o de su asesor legal, no los acredita en la forma debida en el momento oportuno, es una carga que solo debe imputarse en su contra bajo su responsabilidad. No corresponde al juez subsanar dicha situación, salvo que, sin violentar sus funciones y en tutela de los derechos de la parte y con respecto del ordenamiento vigente, considere en forma fundada, sea estrictamente necesario recibir alguna prueba adicional. Si el promovente no logró demostrar la posesión decenal previo a la declaratoria de área silvestre protegida en fecha 23 de enero de 1964, es un problema de prueba propio del promovente no del Despacho como lo pretende hacer ver el apelante, tal y como se indicó. Los testigos ofrecidos no pudieron demostrar la posesión decenal antes de la fecha indicada pues el deponente [Nombre1] ni siquiera había nacido para la fecha en que se afectó al demanio público el bien al declararse área silvestre protegida y otro de ellos nació dos años antes de la declaratoria ([Nombre2] ). En síntesis no lleva razón el promovente pues no demostró la posesión decenal previa a la creación del área silvestre protegida; por lo que se comparte el fallo dictado.\"", "body_en_text": "IV.- This Tribunal has repeatedly held that “... A Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) is a non-contentious judicial proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired through usucapion (usucapión), by fulfilling the corresponding legal requirements. It is necessary to demonstrate possession as owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Civil Code). The applicant, besides lacking a registered or registrable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the property has not been previously registered in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid duplicate registration of the same property, or to protect third parties with better rights than the applicant, the Law requires that certain persons be notified. It also established an opposition procedure within the Possessory Information, in case any interested party feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider as parties and therefore personally notify them from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners (colindantes), because the titling could cover part of the lands belonging to them… it orders notification of co-owners or co-owners (condueños or condóminos). Likewise, to protect the interests of the State, it orders that the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario be considered as parties, to safeguard property subject to public domain, and state Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law mandates that all interested parties who may have a legitimate interest in the proceeding be summoned by publication of an Edict in the Boletín Judicial (see numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias).- The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in its article 7, as well as the Forest Laws, have sought to protect forest resources from human action, subjecting them to various forms of forest management. Although the titling of such areas has been permitted, which, once declared conservation areas, become part of the State Forest Heritage, the fulfillment of other, more stringent requirements is demanded. This leads us directly to the concept of ecological possession (posesión ecológica), and to the criterion of the ecological function of forest property. In repeated rulings, both from the First Chamber of Cassation and this Superior Agrarian Tribunal itself, the principles that must govern the resolution of this type of agro-environmental situation have been established. Our country has been a pioneer in the construction of the institutions of agrarian possession (posesión agraria) and ecological possession. The same jurisprudence has recognized and developed these institutions, as well as the life cycle of agrarian possession and, recently, of ecological possession (within the broader criterion of the ecological function of forest property). The same Jurisprudence has sought to distinguish entrepreneurial property and possession, where an activity aimed at cultivating the forest is carried out, from that where simply an extractive or merely conservative activity is performed. In the latter cases, one would be in the presence of forest property or possession (without enterprise). It is precisely in these cases that the Forest Law establishes an entire legal regime for the protection of forest resources, sometimes subjecting the owner mandatorily to the forest regime and in other cases voluntarily. Thus, in forest possession, the de facto power is exercised over an asset of forest vocation or mostly destined to protect forest resources, without a view to its exploitation or, rather, dedicating it to the simple extraction of timber species, through management plans to achieve the natural regeneration of the forest. In either case, there would be no development of a plant or animal biological cycle, nor would the person assume any risk. That is why the law does not protect, but rather represses, possession through which forest resources in protected areas are destroyed. Furthermore, it denies the possibility of acquiring possessory rights over lands within national reserves when a harmful action against forest resources has been carried out. Today, part of agrarian legal doctrine affirms the existence of a Forest Law (Derecho forestal), with particularities of an organic and complete system, where the institutions of forest property and possession hold an important place. In Costa Rica, forest property, and also forest possession as a real right derived from the former, or conceived independently, began to take shape with the Fiscal Code of 1885, which established an entire chapter on forests whose regulations tend toward their conservation. Subsequently, the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 of January 6, 1939, incorporated those principles. Then, the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, in its article 7, expanded the national reserves for the protection of such resources. VII. Special legislation regarding the protection of forest property and possession has had three stages in our country. The first stage of forest property was framed by Law No. 4465 of November 35, 1969. The second began through better-conceived regulations through Law No. 7032 of April 7, 1986, which was later declared unconstitutional. The last one operates with the enactment of the Forest Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, recently amended by Law No. 7575 of February 13, 1996 (published in Alcance 21 of La Gaceta No. 72 of Tuesday, April 16, 1996). In these, various regimes of forest property are contained, and they limit the use and exploitation of resources by individuals. It is not possible to acquire ownership over lands with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) if it is not proven that the forest resource has been protected. Its constitutional basis is found in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Constitution. Through limitations of social interest, the institution of forest property and possession is protected. This is not the same as civil or agrarian property; it is a property for conservation, and therefore the possessory acts carried out on it must have that purpose.- VIII. Forest possession has had its legal regime in the aforementioned Forest Laws. It falls upon a specific asset: lands covered by forests or of forest aptitude. The owner or possessor of such assets has the obligation to conserve the forest resources and cannot exploit them economically except under the restrictions or limitations imposed by law. For the legal resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of forest possession, that special legal regime and the principles of Forest Law must be applied. The Forest Law establishes as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country’s forest resources, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources (Article 1). All lands of forest aptitude and forests in the country, whether state-owned or reduced to private domain, are subject to the purposes of the law. The forest regime (régimen forestal) is the set of provisions, among others, of a legal, economic, and technical nature, established by the law, its regulations, and other norms, that regulate the conservation, renewal, exploitation, and development of the country’s forests and lands of forest aptitude. Therefore, to acquire forest property by usucapion, the exercise of forest possession is required. Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, amended by the Forest Law, established, before its amendment: “Article 7.- When the real property referred to in the information is located within an area declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protected zone (zona protectora), the applicant must prove having exercised decennial possession for at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree creating the respective wild area. Properties outside those areas that have forests may only be titled if the applicant proves having possessed them for ten years or more and having protected that natural resource, on the understanding that the real property must be properly delineated with fences or paths (carriles).” In other words, the de facto power in forest possession falls upon the natural resource “forests” or “lands of forest aptitude,” and the possessory acts must be aimed at their protection and conservation. Only if this is proven could lands be acquired or registered in favor of said possessors. Otherwise, they would become part of the state’s natural heritage (article 13 of the new Forest Law), with an unseizable and inalienable character, and their possession shall not give rise to any right in favor of individuals (article 14 of the new Forest Law).- IX. The Agrarian Tribunal had interpreted article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, prior to its amendment by the new Forest Law, in the sense of requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this regard Votos No. 169 of 9:40 a.m. on March 22, 1991, and No. 251 of 2:00 p.m. on April 17, 1991)…”. However, that interpretation of article 7 of the Forest Law was challenged as “unconstitutional” by the applicant here, and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Voto No. 4587-97 (published in Boletín Judicial No. 188 dated October 1, 1997) declared, in what is relevant: “The action is partially upheld and, consequently, the interpretation of article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment produced by Forest Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, is unconstitutional, according to which, to title lands located in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, or protected zones, personal possession ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating the protected wild area is required, and which does not favor, in these cases, possession transmitted by previous possessors. This ruling is declaratory and its effects retroactive, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith…”. Therefore, current possessors can take advantage of transmitted possession…X. Forest Law No. 7575 also maintained the restrictions in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias for titling lands located in protected areas. In this regard, the current provision states: “Article 7.- When the real property referred to in the information is located within a protected wild area, regardless of its management category, the applicant must prove to be the holder of legal rights over decennial possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wild area.” (Emphasis ours). That is, the legislator’s intent is that these areas have been maintained protected and conserved throughout this entire time, even before the creation of the Reserves and protected areas…”. (Resolution of 2:50 p.m. on February 20, 1998, corresponding to Voto No. 113). V.- Regarding the appellant’s claim that the fact the property was within the Río Macho Forest Reserve arose during the course of the proceeding, this has been known since the proceeding began, as one of the initial requirements is the certification from the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía confirming this circumstance (see folio 2), submitted by the applicant at the start of the proceeding. This document indicates the property subject to titling is located within said protected wild area created by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 1-A of January 23, 1964. Based on the above, it is clear this circumstance was known, and therefore it was the applicant's obligation to prove decennial possession prior to the indicated date when the Río Macho Forest Reserve was created. VI.- Regarding the argument concerning the evidence for better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver) that the appellant claims was not taken by the judge, it is necessary to point out to the appellant that such evidence is at the discretion of the judge, not the parties. Furthermore, the applicant should have, from the moment testimonial evidence was offered, verified that the witnesses knew the land for a sufficient time to prove the facts affirmed by her. If, due to error or ignorance on the part of the petitioner or her legal advisor, they were not properly accredited in the timely manner, this is a burden that must be attributed solely against her, under her own responsibility. It is not for the judge to remedy that situation, unless, without violating his functions and in protection of the party’s rights and respecting the current legal system, he considers, with a reasoned basis, that it is strictly necessary to receive additional evidence. If the applicant did not manage to prove the decennial possession prior to the declaration of the protected wild area on January 23, 1964, this is an evidentiary problem of the applicant herself, not of the Court as the appellant tries to make it seem, as previously indicated. The witnesses offered could not prove decennial possession before the indicated date because the deponent [Name1] had not even been born on the date the property was subjected to public domain upon being declared a protected wild area, and another of them was born two years before the declaration ([Name2]). In summary, the applicant is not correct, as she did not prove decennial possession prior to the creation of the protected wild area; therefore, the appealed ruling is upheld.”\n\nIV.- This Tribunal has repeatedly held that \"... The Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) is a non-contentious judicial proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired by adverse possession (usucapión), complying with the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Civil Code). The title applicant, apart from lacking a registered or registrable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the property has not been previously registered in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid double registry inscription over the same property, or to protect third parties with better rights than the title applicant, the Law requires notification to certain subjects. It also established an opposition procedure within the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria), in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider as parties and therefore to personally notify them from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners, because the titling could encompass part of the lands that belong to them... it is ordered to notify the co-owners or co-owners. Likewise, in safeguarding the interests of the State, it is ordered to consider as a party the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, for the protection of property subject to public domain, and of state Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law commands to cite all interested parties, through the publication of an Edict in the Judicial Bulletin, who may have a legitimate interest in the process. (See numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias).- The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in its article 7, as well as the Forestry Laws have sought to protect forest resources from human action, subjecting them to various forms of forest management. Although the titling of such areas has been permitted, which once declared as conservation areas become part of the State's Forest Heritage, compliance with other more qualified requirements is demanded. This leads us directly to the concept of ecological possession (posesión ecológica), and to the criterion of the ecological function of forest property. In repeated rulings, both from the First Chamber of Cassation, and from this same Tribunal Superior Agrario, the principles that must govern to resolve this type of agro-environmental situation have been established. Our country has been a pioneer in the construction of the institutes of agrarian possession (posesión agraria) and ecological possession (posesión ecológica). The same jurisprudence has recognized and developed these institutes, as well as the life cycle of agrarian possession (posesión agraria) and, recently, of ecological possession (posesión ecológica) (within the broader criterion of the ecological function of forest property). The same Jurisprudence has sought to distinguish business property and possession where an activity aimed at cultivating the forest is carried out, from that where an extractive activity is simply performed or, merely, a conservative one. In these latter cases, one would be in the presence of a forest property or possession (without enterprise). It is precisely in these cases where the Forestry Law comes to establish a whole legal regime for the protection of forest resources, sometimes subjecting the owner obligatorily to the forest regime and in other cases voluntarily. In this way, in forest possession (posesión forestal), the de facto power is exercised over a property of forest vocation or mostly destined to protect forest resources, without aims for its exploitation or, dedicating it to the simple extraction of timber species, through management plans to achieve the natural regeneration of the forest. In either case, there would be no development of a plant or animal biological cycle, nor would man assume any risk. That is why the law does not protect, but rather represses, the possession through which the forest resources of protected areas are destroyed. Furthermore, it denies the possibility of acquiring possession rights over lands of national reserves when a harmful action has been exercised against the forest resources. Today, part of the agrarian doctrine affirms the existence of a Forestry Law, with particularities of an organic and complete system, where the institutes of property and forest possession (posesión forestal) occupy an important place. In Costa Rica, forest property, and also forest possession (posesión forestal) as a real right derived from it, or conceived independently, began to take shape since the Fiscal Code of 1885, which establishes an entire chapter regarding forests whose regulations tend to their conservation. Subsequently, the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 of January 6, 1939 incorporates said principles. Then the Ley de Tierras y Colonización in its article 7 expands the national reserves for the protection of such resources. VII. The special legislation regarding the protection of forest property and possession (posesión forestal) has three stages in our country. The first stage of forest property is framed with Law No. 4465 of November 35, 1969. The second opens through a better-conceived normative through Law No. 7032 of April 7, 1986, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional. The latest operates with the enactment of the Forestry Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, recently amended by Law No. 7575 of February 13, 1996 (published in scope 21 of La Gaceta No. 72 of Tuesday, April 16, 1996). In them, diverse regimes of forest property are contained, and the use and exploitation of resources by individuals is limited. It is not possible to acquire title over lands with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) if one does not demonstrate having protected the forest resource. Its constitutional foundation is found in the second paragraph of article 45 of the Constitution. Through limitations of social interest, the institute of property and forest possession (posesión forestal) is protected. This is not the same as civil or agrarian property; it is a property for conservation, and therefore the possessory acts carried out on it must have that purpose.- VIII. Forest possession (posesión forestal) has had its legal regime in the mentioned Forestry Laws. It applies to a specific property: lands covered by forests or of forest aptitude. The owner or possessor of such properties has the obligation to conserve the forest resources and cannot economically exploit them except under the restrictions or limitations imposed by law. For the legal solution of conflicts arising from the exercise of forest possession (posesión forestal), this special legal regime and the principles of Forestry Law must be applied. The Forestry Law establishes as an essential function and priority of the State to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources. (Article 1). All lands of forest aptitude and the country's forests, whether state-owned or reduced to private domain, are subject to the purposes of the law. The forest regime is the set of provisions, among others, of a legal, economic, and technical nature, established by law, its regulation, and other norms, that regulate the conservation, renewal, exploitation, and development of the country's forests and lands of forest aptitude. Therefore, to acquire forest property by adverse possession (usucapión), the exercise of forest possession (posesión forestal) is required. Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, amended by the Forestry Law, established, before its amendment: \"Article 7.- When the property to which the information refers is within an area declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protective zone, the title applicant must demonstrate having exercised decennial possession (posesión decenal) at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree in which the respective protected wild area was created. Properties that are outside those areas and have forests may only be titled if the applicant demonstrates having possessed them for ten years or more and having protected said natural resource, on the understanding that the property must be duly demarcated with fences or lanes.\" In other words, the de facto power in forest possession (posesión forestal) applies to the natural resource \"forests\" or \"lands of forest aptitude,\" and the possessory acts must be aimed at their protection and conservation. Only if this is demonstrated could lands be acquired or registered in favor of said possessors. Otherwise, they would become part of the natural heritage of the state (article 13 of the new Forestry Law), with an unattachable and inalienable character, and their possession will not cause any right in favor of individuals (article 14 of the new Forestry Law).- IX. The Tribunal Agrario had interpreted article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before being amended by the new Forestry Law, in the sense of requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this regard Votos No. 169 of 9 hours 40 minutes of March 22, 1991 and No. 251 of 14 hours of April 17, 1991)...\". However, that interpretation of article 7 of the Forestry Law was challenged as \"unconstitutional\" by the title applicant here, and the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 4587-97 (published in the Judicial Bulletin No. 188 dated October 1, 1997) declared, in what is relevant, the following: \"The action is partially granted and, consequently, the interpretation of article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment produced by the Forestry Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, is unconstitutional, according to which to title lands located in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves or protective zones, personal possession is required with ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that creates the protected wild area, and that it does not favor, in these cases, possession transmitted by previous possessors. This ruling is declaratory and its effects retroactive, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith...\". In such a way that current possessors can take advantage of the transmitted possession...X. The Forestry Law No. 7575 also maintained the restrictions in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias to be able to title lands within protected areas. In this regard, the current numeral provides: \"Article 7.-When the property to which the information refers is within a protected wild area, whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over the decennial possession (posesión decenal), exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree in which that wild area was created.\" (Our emphasis). That is, the legislator's intention is that these areas have been kept protected, conserved during all this time, even before the creation of the Reserves and protected areas...\". (Resolution of 14:50 hours of February 20, 1998 responding to Voto No. 113). V.- Regarding what was alleged by the appellant that the fact that the property was within the Río Macho Forest Reserve arose in the course of the process, since from the beginning of the procedure this is known as one of the initial requirements is the certification of the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía where such circumstance is recorded (see folio 2), presented by the applicant at the start of the process. This document indicates that the property subject to titling is located within said protected wild area created by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 1-A of January 23, 1964. Based on the foregoing, it is clear such circumstance was known and therefore it was their obligation to demonstrate decennial possession (posesión decenal) prior to the indicated date on which the Río Macho Forest Reserve was created. VI.- Regarding the argument referring to the evidence for better decision that he points out was not evacuated by the judge, it is necessary to indicate to the appellant that such evidence is optional for the judge, not for the parties. The titling party also had to, from the moment they offered testimonial evidence, corroborate that the witnesses knew the land for sufficient time to be able to prove the facts affirmed by them. If due to error or ignorance of the applicant or their legal advisor, they were not accredited in due form at the opportune moment, it is a burden that must only be imputed against them under their responsibility. It is not up to the judge to remedy said situation, unless, without violating their functions and in protection of the rights of the party and with respect for the current legal system, they consider on a grounded basis that it is strictly necessary to receive some additional evidence. If the applicant failed to demonstrate decennial possession (posesión decenal) prior to the declaration of protected wild area on January 23, 1964, it is a problem of proof belonging to the applicant, not to the Court as the appellant seeks to make it appear, as was indicated. The offered witnesses could not demonstrate the decennial possession (posesión decenal) before the indicated date because the deponent [Name1] had not even been born by the date on which the property was affected to the public domain when declared a protected wild area, and another of them was born two years before the declaration ([Name2]). In summary, the applicant is not correct because they did not demonstrate the decennial possession (posesión decenal) prior to the creation of the protected wild area; therefore, the issued ruling is shared.\"\n\nV. As to the appellant's claim that the fact that the property was within the Reserva Forestal Río Macho emerged during the course of the proceedings, this was known from the moment the procedure began, since one of the initial requirements is a certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) attesting to this circumstance (see folio 2), submitted by the applicant when initiating the process. This document indicates that the property subject to titling is located within said protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) created by Executive Decree No. 1-A of January 23, 1964. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that this circumstance was known, and therefore it was the applicant's obligation to demonstrate ten-year possession (posesión decenal) prior to the date on which the Reserva Forestal Río Macho was created. VI. As to the argument regarding the evidence for a better decision (prueba para mejor resolver), which the appellant claims was not taken by the judge, it is necessary to inform the appellant that such evidence is a discretionary power of the judge, not the parties. Furthermore, the titling party, from the moment it offered testimonial evidence, was required to corroborate that the witnesses had known the land for a sufficient time to be able to prove the facts asserted by that party. If, due to error or ignorance on the part of the petitioner or their legal advisor, the witnesses are not accredited in the proper manner at the appropriate time, this is a burden that must be charged solely against that party under their own responsibility. It is not for the judge to remedy such a situation, unless, without exceeding their functions and in protection of the party's rights while respecting the legal system in force, the judge deems, on reasoned grounds, that it is strictly necessary to receive additional evidence. If the applicant failed to demonstrate ten-year possession (posesión decenal) prior to the declaration of the protected wilderness area on January 23, 1964, it is an evidentiary problem of the applicant, not of the Court (Despacho), as the appellant attempts to suggest, as previously indicated. The witnesses produced could not demonstrate ten-year possession (posesión decenal) before the indicated date, because the deponent [Name1] had not even been born by the date the property was incorporated into the public domain (demanio público) upon being declared a protected wilderness area, and another was born two years before the declaration ([Name2]). In summary, the applicant is not correct, as they did not demonstrate ten-year possession (posesión decenal) prior to the creation of the protected wilderness area; therefore, the ruling issued is affirmed.\"" }